Why is TV SF so bad? (And a modest proposal to fix it)

[Alelou]

Well, again, these guys are writing under tight deadlines with multiple passes through lots of people, some of whom will care about the science and some of whom are mostly worried about ratings or budget or just getting the damned thing done on time. I'm not positive, but I got the impression ST used to try to pass some science stuff by 'advisors' at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, but I'm not even sure those advisors ever got paid in anything but studio tours and such.

It's not pretty, but it seems to be accepted as the standard practice. Most costs on a TV show are pretty much fixed by the union contracts with actors, writers, producers, trades, etc. Then you've got your sets and special effects and I know ST at least would go into incredible contortions to avoid having to show a ship or a battle scene because of the extra costs involved. I assume modern CGI has made that easier, but it's still got to be an issue. In any case, spending extra to make sure the science is right probably isn't a big priority with most show-runners. And I don't see the American people demanding anything better. Being dismissive and skeptical of science sits pretty well with a large chunk of the American people, and at least SOME of those people have to tune into your sci-fi show or it probably won't make it.

Terra Nova is just as uneven as Enterprise ever was, only worse because it has stupid kid stuff added in. I don't mind watching it, though, because it poses an interesting idea once in awhile, and it's an escape from daily life. But it does bug me that they have a 13-episode run instead of 22 and they haven't brought up the quality at all. Clearly the limited 13-week run does not include any extra time or money to get things right.

[WarpGirl]

Well Terra Nova doesn't really interest me because I'm not a dinosaur lover. And yes I realize there are deadlines, but again in the age of the I-Pod, Smart Phone, Internet, e-mail, ect... It isn't time consuming to fact check, and keep continuity. If you can stream 24 episodes to TV to your cell phone in less than five minutes wrunning a quick google search for facts about anti-matter should not be an issue.

[Alelou]

Truly figuring out the practical engineering applications of antimatter two or three hundred years in the future is not something you'll likely find in a google search in five minutes, however. Then there's the problem of getting into topics so advanced, or requiring so much prequisite knowledge, that looking them up just leaves you more confused than ever.

Besides, just because one wild-eyed Japanese physicist somewhere said something was conceivable doesn't mean every physicist will agree with him. You'll still get nit-picking. Not to mention that scientific exposition (aka technobabble) is usually a serious drag on dramatic momentum.

I have no particular interest in dinosaurs myself. They're just the convenient Klingons of "Terra Nova," chewing people up when you need them to and strangely absent when you don't. I do find the conceit of setting up a new society after the old one fails rather interesting, though. This show could just as easily have taken place on another planet. Turn the portal into a one-way wormhole, and you have exactly the same thing. It appears to be a cross between Little House on the Cretaceous Prairie and Lost, which can be a rather confusing combination for the audience.

[WarpGirl]

Of course I'm not saying google will give you a doctorate instantly, but it can at least give you some basic facts.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Modern Star Trek did employ a science adviser. His name was André Bormanis. But apparently TPTB didn't listen to him enough. And eventually he got sucked into the writing process, ending up a script writer himself.

[Transwarp]

Truly figuring out the practical engineering applications of antimatter two or three hundred years in the future is not something you'll likely find in a google search in five minutes, however. Then there's the problem of getting into topics so advanced, or requiring so much perquisite knowledge, that looking them up just leaves you more confused than ever.

I would suggest they work most of the major details out upfront, before they write the first script. Create a book of basic facts about the universe and it's technology. And you really don't need all the intricate details, just the basics. "In this universe, starships are propelled by FTL drives that can warp the fabric of space and are powered by matter-antimatter annihilation. The antimatter is stored in magnetic bottles, and if the magnetic containment ever loses power the ship goes kablooey." Provide a basic schematic, principles of operation and a list of limitations and potential problems that can be used as a source of drama. (Such as can't warp within too strong a gravity field, so have to be a certain distance from a star, or it takes ten minutes to run engines from idle to max, etc...)

Besides, just because one wild-eyed Japanese physicist somewhere said something was conceivable doesn't mean every physicist will agree with him.

Doesn't matter. It's an extrapolation of current science and a legitimate proposition for a science fiction story. If twenty years from now it's proven impossible? Oh well.

You'll still get nit-picking.

Sure, some. But most of us can tell the difference between an honest mistake and complete indifference. Right now they're not even TRYING.

scientific exposition (aka technobabble) is usually a serious drag on dramatic momentum.

Yes, if the technobabble is just there to explain how some future appliance like a food replicator works. But if the dramatic moment involves the fact that the hero is stuck on the planet, you'd better give me some technobabble to explain why you can't just beam him up or you've lost me. (OMG Just beam him up... You DO remember you have transporters in this universe, right?)

I do find the conceit of setting up a new society after the old one fails rather interesting, though.

And THAT"S why we have science fiction. So we can see things we could never see in the real world, like setting up new societies. But for me it's not enjoyable if I see no discernible effort on the part of the show-runners to keep the science as real and consistent as possible. Yes, I get it; most people don't care. But the attitude seems to go beyond that. There seems to be a wide-spread belief that the story would necessarily suffer from any attempt to adhere to good science.

Based on what I've read here, it's fairly obvious the system itself is rigged against my desired outcome. But such is life.

[WarpGirl]

You're right about the fact that sci-fi writers SHOULD read about the sciences they explore for the stories they're paid to write. So if they're going to write about antimatter they should read about it. But who wants to sit through science class when they're relaxing after work or school? For my own tastes I prefer the fantasy more than the reality. But that doesn't mean that writers, shouldn't use the possible and, or, probable when they can.

[Alelou]

Voyager did have something like a guide they wrote up ahead of time -- I used to have a copy of it. Maybe they called a technical manual? There was one for the characters that I think they called a writer's guide and another that I think was more about the technology. It didn't go into a lot of detail at all, though; in fact, as interested as I was in writing for them I can't remember a single detail from it. It was quite slender, too. It struck me as an attempt to help writers who weren't familiar with Star Trek adhere to some basic information that Trekkies have all internalized already so the producers wouldn't have to explain the same stuff to new people over and over again. Of course, Voyager was such a spin-off from TNG that they practically could have used the same manual TNG did.

[WarpGirl]

If I remember right they called it "the bible" but that is a common term for different productions stage or screen. I also remember reading that Jeri Taylor wrote it, not the B's. Another reason it was such a sad day when Ms. Taylor left Trek.

[Alelou]

Well, Voyager was her baby (and Piller's?), although I think it frustrated her that they ended TNG as a TV show when it was still going strong to hand it over to the movie people. Enterprise was B&B's. I sometimes wonder if it would have had a better chance with Taylor at the helm.

Oh, THAT'S the name of the macho benevolent dictator on Terra Nova. Okay, is that just a coincidence??? LOL.

And what is this obsession with English guys named Malcolm???

[WarpGirl]

According to the search I just did in about 30 seconds from the baby name site Malcolm means Servant of Saint Columbia. Now, I haven't read up on many saints; haven't had the need too, but maybe that is an important saint in Britan. I honestly have no clue.

[Alelou]

It's fairly common but hardly the stereotypical name you'd expect every Englishman to have. If I wrote a novel with one English guy named Malcolm in it, I wouldn't put another English guy named Malcolm in my next, completely different novel with brand-new characters. It's just not that hard to come up with another name.

Hopefully it's not some sort of commentary on the last one, since the new one is a prat.

[putaro]

I don't need to have every last equation come out but a lot of times the writing is just so lazy.

Case in point, last week's Fringe episode. They have this guy who has some kind of octopus like chromatophores in his skin. But, these don't just camouflage him, no, he's full on invisible. Just kind of a shimmer in the air. And then, he's going around killing people and sucking their pigment out so that he can be visible.

So, the chromatophores in human skin I'll give a pass - I'm sure the biology is bogus but I can't explain why easily so I'll just go with it.

Full on invisible because his skin changes color? Harder to believe. What about his hair? And his pupils? Nostrils? All right, I'm starting to pick too much.

Killing people so that he can suck out their pigment and become a "real boy". OK, you just lost me. Haven't the writers ever heard of DermaBlend (don't watch this video if gross, full body tattoos upset you). Haven't they watched "The Invisible Man"? Why is killing people and making a basement lab to transplant their pigment into himself easier than buying some makeup?

The monster of the week is background for the character interaction but there's still no excuse for such a large dose of "deh stupid". And in a show where there's all kinds of mental powers, his invisibility could have been some kind of mental power and it would have fit right in.

Also, writers need to be careful about introducing technology so powerful or versatile that it could affect everything. The transporter in Star Trek is a perfect example. There's so many things you can do with it. Every time someone is stuck on the surface you need an excuse for why they can't be transported off. Whenever someone transports onto a ship to sabotage it we have to ask "Why didn't you just transport a bomb?

For me, I like the technology (or magic if you prefer) to have limits. I think characters working around the limitations of their technology (magic) makes for much more interesting situations than just pulling another gadget (or spell - Wingardium Leviosa!) out of their pocket.

Enterprise had the opportunity to make the Trek technology much more limited but all they really seemed to do was have the Earth weapons be less powerful. Subspace communication everywhere - why? It would have been much more interesting for Archer to have been off the leash, the way an old-time sailing captain would have been. Transporter? Really, there was no need for it.

[WarpGirl]

So you'd like the Tech the way it's used in something like Batman? I'm playing my demo of Arkham Asylum wright now so I've got bat's on the brain. See I'm not sure I want that for Trek, once upon a time, Trek was 300-400 years in the future. So the all powerful, (and sometimes wierdly malfunctioning) was perfectly cool!

I think one of the problems I had with ENT subconsciously was that it was only 150 years ahead of the now and it looked kind of backward.

I think maybe a different approach to how they integrate the technology into the story could use work, but personally, I don't have a problem with the tech in itself.

[Transwarp]

Enterprise had the opportunity to make the Trek technology much more limited but all they really seemed to do was have the Earth weapons be less powerful. Subspace communication everywhere - why? It would have been much more interesting for Archer to have been off the leash, the way an old-time sailing captain would have been. Transporter? Really, there was no need for it.

I agree. I've said this before, but ENT and TOS are my favorite Star Treks in part because the technology is more limited (No holodecks!!!)

The transporter in Star Trek is a perfect example. There's so many things you can do with it. Every time someone is stuck on the surface you need an excuse for why they can't be transported off. Whenever someone transports onto a ship to sabotage it we have to ask "Why didn't you just transport a bomb?

Let me hear an AMEN, brother!

Although the transporter *could* explain what seems to be a perplexing lack of toilets in the future. Just transport the waste from your bladder and intestines every morning...